New Delhi:

Making strong observations on the practice of political parties announcing freebies ahead of elections, the Supreme Court has said people are “not willing to work” because of them and wondered whether a “class of parasites” was being created in the country. 

Hearing a matter on the right to shelter of homeless persons in urban areas, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih said people were getting ration and money without working.

“Rather than promoting them to be a part of the mainstream of the society by contributing to the development of the nation, are we not creating a class of parasites?” the bench asked. 

Pulling no punches, Justice Gavai referred to the ‘Ladki Bahin’ scheme in Maharashtra – under which women in the age group of 21-65 with an annual family income of less than Rs 2.5 lakh get Rs 1,500 per month – and similar programmes run by ruling parties in other states and said,  “Unfortunately, because of these freebies, which just on the anvil of elections are declared, like ‘Ladki Bahin’ and other schemes, people are not willing to work… They are getting free ration and money without doing any work.”

“We quite appreciate your concern for them but would it not be better to make them a part of the mainstream of society and permit them to contribute to the development of the nation?” the bench asked.

When Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one of the petitioners, said there was hardly anybody in the country who did not want to work if they got work, he was interrupted by Justice Gavai, who went on to cite an example. 

“You must be having only one-sided knowledge. I come from an agricultural family. Because of the freebies in Maharashtra which they announced just prior to elections, agriculturists are not getting labourers,” he said. 

‘Need For Balance’

The bench noted that everybody, including Attorney General R Venkataramani, was on the same page that providing shelter to the homeless merited attention but asked, “At the same time, should it not be balanced?” 

Mr Venkataramani said the Centre was finalising the urban poverty alleviation mission, which would tackle issues like providing shelter to the urban homeless. The bench asked the Attorney General for a timeline and also said the Centre should gather information from all states so that the issue could be considered on a pan-India basis.

When one of the petitioners said the cause of the homeless was not being addressed as it was last on the priority and that the authorities showed compassion only for the rich and not the poor, his arguments were shot down by Justice Gavai. 

“Don’t make a political speech here. We won’t permit our courtrooms to be converted into (an arena for) political battle… How do you say the compassion is shown only for the rich? Even for the government, how can you say this?” 

The matter will now be heard after six weeks. 

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has spoken out against freebies. In December, a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Manmohan was surprised when it was informed by the Centre that 81 crore people are being given free or subsidised ration under the National Food Security Act of 2013. 

On migrant workers who have been receiving free ration since the Covid pandemic, the bench had said, “For how long can freebies be given? Why don’t we work to create job opportunities, employment and capacity building for these migrant workers?”

Delhi High Court’s Refusal

The Supreme Court’s observations came on a day when the Delhi High Court refused to hear a petition filed by a former judge against freebies promised by the Aam Aadmi Party, Congress and BJP ahead of the Delhi Assembly elections on February 5.

In his complaint, Justice SN Dhingra said such promises made by parties amounted to corrupt practices under the Representation of People Act and sought directions to the Election Commission to declare them “unconstitutional”. The high court asked the former judge to approach the Supreme Court after it was told that a similar case was already pending before it. 

The distribution of freebies has also become a political issue and Prime Minister Narendra Modi has frequently attacked the AAP, Congress and other parties, accusing them of trying to buy people’s votes by distributing “revdis”. Hitting back, the parties have attacked the BJP-led government’s track record on inflation and unemployment and said there is nothing wrong with taxpayer money being used to make people’s lives easier. 

(With inputs from PTI)

The debate over “freebies” in election campaigns exposes the tension between populist politics and fiscal prudence. Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar captured this complexity succinctly, questioning what qualifies as a freebie; an entitlement for one may be an extravagance for another. Addressing the announcement of Delhi’s poll schedule, Kumar lamented the lack of “accepted and legal answers” while warning against mortgaging future generations’ welfare for present-day political gains. His remarks underline the need for a framework that not only scrutinises the financial sustainability of poll promises but also reconciles welfare priorities with fiscal responsibility

The CEC was right when he said defining a freebie was difficult. It is fraught with philosophical challenges, the first of which lies in the subjective nature of value. What constitutes a freebie often depends on individual perceptions of necessity, entitlement, and utility. For example, some might see free electricity subsidies as essential for marginalised communities, while others view them as unnecessary handouts. This subjectivity creates a tension between the concepts of utility (benefit to the recipient) and entitlement (moral or legal right to receive the benefit). It challenges policymakers to draw a clear line between welfare measures that address inequality and populist giveaways that may lack long-term impact.

A Complex Question

The RBI Bulletin 2022 defines freebies as public welfare measures offered at no cost, such as free electricity, water, public transportation, and utility bill write-offs. However, the RBI draws a critical distinction between these and spending on public merit goods like the Public Distribution System (PDS), employment guarantee schemes, and state support for education and health. Unlike freebies, these merit goods generate economic benefits and positive externalities.

A study by the Centre for Policy Research (CPR) showed the effectiveness of freebies such as laptops, bicycles, and cash transfers in positively influencing voter turnout. These initiatives often resonate with voters, especially in lower-income demographics, as they provide tangible and immediate benefits.

However, while such measures may temporarily improve voter engagement, they risk undermining systemic governance and developmental priorities. Over-reliance on freebies diverts state resources from essential long-term investments in critical sectors like education, healthcare, and infrastructure. This trade-off perpetuates structural deficiencies, ultimately hampering economic growth and human capital development. Moreover, as political parties escalate their promises to outbid competitors, states risk slipping into unsustainable fiscal deficits, leading to potential economic crises.

The competitive populism associated with freebies also shifts the focus of electoral campaigns away from substantive policy debates to a transactional relationship between voters and the state. This dynamic may erode trust in democratic institutions over time, as governance becomes more about immediate gratification than addressing structural inequities or ensuring long-term economic resilience.

Rising Subsidy Costs

Election-driven promises of freebies have led to a sharp rise in subsidy expenditures, as highlighted in the RBI report State Finances: A Study of Budgets 2024-25. This increase, driven by farm loan waivers, free or subsidised services like electricity, transport, and gas, and direct cash transfers to farmers, youth, and women, creates fiscal stress. The report has even recommended that states urgently rationalise these subsidies to ensure that essential productive investments are not crowded out.

But why can’t the Election Commission stop political parties from announcing freebies? This is because of a Supreme Court judgement. The Court, in S. Subramaniam Balaji v. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2013), held that announcing freebies in election manifestos is not illegal, as such promises cannot be classified as “corrupt practices” under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act (RP Act). However, the Court acknowledged that these promises significantly undermine free and fair elections by influencing voters, distorting the level playing field, and vitiating the electoral process. Recognising the Election Commission’s limited authority, especially for manifestos released before election dates, the Court directed the Commission to frame guidelines under the Model Code of Conduct. It emphasised the need for separate legislation to regulate such practices. While legally permissible, the judgment flagged the moral and ethical issues surrounding freebies, highlighting their adverse impact on democratic integrity and calling for systemic reforms.

A Proposal From 2022

Based on the advice from the judgement, in October 2022, the EC introduced a significant reform aimed at ensuring transparency and fiscal responsibility in electoral promises. The EC proposed requiring political parties to submit a detailed pro forma along with their election manifestos. This pro forma would mandate a granular breakdown of each electoral promise, including the estimated expenditure, targeted beneficiaries, and a clear financing plan to ensure these promises did not destabilise state finances. Grounded in the principle of providing voters with actionable and comparable data, the initiative aimed to address the shortcomings of existing Model Code of Conduct (MCC) guidelines, which often resulted in vague and inadequate disclosures by political parties.

The proposal has not been implemented despite its potential to promote fiscal prudence and deter reckless electoral promises. Resistance from political parties, concerns over constitutional and legal implications, and a lack of consensus among stakeholders have stalled progress. Many political parties argued that such mandates could infringe upon their autonomy and flexibility in addressing voter needs, while others questioned the EC’s authority to enforce such measures without legislative backing. As a result, the initiative remains a missed opportunity to instil accountability in electoral campaigns.

It is high time this reform is implemented, as it represents a critical step towards fostering transparency and fiscal responsibility in electoral promises. While it is true that the EC may find it challenging to verify the granular accuracy of the fiscal calculations presented in the pro forma, the very act of requiring political parties to disclose these details introduces an essential layer of accountability. The reform serves as an important nudge against the indiscriminate announcement of freebies that can strain state finances.

A Discerning Public

However, the true challenge lies in addressing the broader issue of public awareness. Voters must understand the real fiscal cost of these promises and how, over the long term, such measures can undermine economic stability and harm the very median voter they are meant to benefit. This requires a concerted effort to educate citizens on the trade-offs involved—such as increased taxes, reduced spending on essential public goods, or ballooning debt—that often accompany populist giveaways.

Bridging this gap in public understanding is indeed a tougher nut to crack as it involves overcoming entrenched narratives and emotional appeals that often accompany populist politics. Nevertheless, the EC’s reform, by reducing information asymmetry, provides a vital starting point.

(Aditya Sinha is a public policy professional.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

The court was hearing a plea filed by the All India Judges Association regarding retired judges’ pension.

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday warned the Maharashtra government that it would suspend its freebie schemes unless it pays compensation to a private party whose land was “illegally” occupied by it more than six decades ago.

Coming down heavily on the Maharashtra government, the court said it had a huge amount to “waste on freebies” but does not have money to compensate a private party which lost land to it “illegally”.

Observing that Maharashtra’s conduct in the matter was not that of a “model state”, the court warned it may direct that all the freebie schemes will be suspended until the compensation amount was paid.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and K V Viswanathan noted while the state has offered to pay Rs 37.42 crore as compensation, the applicant’s counsel has contended that it comes to around Rs 317 crore.

Advocate Nishant R Katneshwarkar, appearing for Maharashtra, urged the bench to grant three weeks, saying the matter was being considered at the highest level and certain principle was required to be followed for calculating compensation according to the ready reckoner.

“We will grant you three weeks time and pass an interim order that until we permit, no freebies schemes should be implemented in the state of Maharashtra. We will stop ‘Ladki Bahin’, ‘Ladka Bhau’,” the bench said.

Under the ‘Mukhyamantri Majhi Ladki Bahin Yojana’ announced by the state government earlier this year, Rs 1,500 is slated to be transferred into the bank accounts of eligible women in the age group of 21 to 65 years whose family income was less than Rs 2.5 lakh.

Similarly, under the ‘Ladka Bhau Yojana’, the scheme’s primary goal is to provide financial assistance and practical work experience to young men.

During the hearing, Mr Katneshwarkar said he bowed to the directions passed by the court but due to such observations, headlines were made.

“Maybe. We are not bothered about it. We don’t read newspapers. We are concerned about the rights of the citizens,” Justice Gavai observed.

The bench said it was constrained to make those observations.

“You have thousands of crores of rupees to waste on freebies from the money of the public exchequer, but you don’t have money to give to the person whose land has been deprived without following due process of law,” it asked.

Referring to the earlier orders passed by the top court, the bench said it had recorded the “glaring facts” in the matter.

It noted since the court was not satisfied with the stand taken by the state in its affidavit filed on August 9, it had asked the state’s counsel to discuss with the chief secretary and come out with a proposal which would at least be reasonable.

The bench noted the land belonging to the applicant was illegally taken in possession by the state and later it was allotted to the Armament Research Development Establishment Institute (ARDEI).

It said despite succeeding in the litigation right up to the top court, the applicant was required to run from pillar to post to get their legitimate due.

“We are not impressed with the submissions (of the state). If the state government wants to act with urgency in certain matters, the decisions are taken within 24 hours. However, we are inclined to give some more time to the state government to work out a reasonable compensation,” the bench said.

It posted the matter for hearing on August 28 to enable the state to come out with proposal for grant of reasonable compensation.

“Needless to state that if the state government does not come with such a proposal by that date, we will be compelled to pass such order as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances,” the bench said.

The state’s counsel said they be permitted to file an affidavit so that they can point out the steps taken by them.

The bench said the state may file an affidavit before the next date of hearing.

“But if we find that there is non-application of mind and he (applicant) is being harassed… not only that we will direct all compensation to be paid as per the new Act, we will direct that until that amount is paid, all your freebie schemes will be suspended,” it said.

“We are warning you that if we don’t find the stand to be genuine, apart from directing the compensation to be paid as per the new Act, the second direction will hit you more,” the bench said.

While hearing the matter on Tuesday, the court had asked the state to come up with a “reasonable” amount of compensation.

The court was hearing a matter related to the construction of buildings on forest land in Maharashtra, where a private party has succeeded in the Supreme Court to get possession of the land that was “illegally occupied” by the state.

The state government has claimed that the said piece of land was occupied by the ARDEI, a unit of the Centre’s Defence Department.

The government has said subsequently, another piece of land was allotted to the private party in lieu of the land that was in the ARDEI’s possession.

However, later it was found that the land allotted to the private party was notified as forest land.

In its July 23 order, the bench noted that the private party, which has succeeded up to the top court, cannot be denied the benefits of the decree passed in his favour.